D&D General 5e System Redesign through New Classes and Setting. A Thought Experiment.

[Zardnaar]

You don't "Need" to do anything. But I think you misinterpreted me saying "some differentiation" with "This is the only thing that makes the classes different at all and otherwise they all function the same way"

Power Source alignment was just so that classes with the same power source have something in common with one another, and different from other power sources.

Not "The only thing" or "The big thing" just something.

Don't need to formalize roles... but you can. And it works well to design off a structure.

Both because it gives you some rules to follow in your designs and rules to break in your designs. And you know me: I like to break rules in my designs.

That said, yeah, a Sorcerer would 100% be a Blaster if I were to build it from scratch using these guidelines. It'd still have the -option- to use control, just like every role, but "Controller" isn't a role in this setup both to ensure everyone gets to do some and no one gets pigeonholed into that concept.

'Kay! That's a perfectly reasonable position to have! I'm not here to yuck your yum, just express a way that the design problem the WotC D&D team didn't plan form can be solved.

It is a tragic design flaw, yes. It's why I'd much rather castery-types get spell slots, martial types get exertion, etc. So that you don't get trapped in that vancian structure where you play out battles in a routine.

Other thing is communication. I use the term striker not because i think a hard coded 4E one is a good idea. But because people will at least know what I'm talking about.

Is this a problem, does it need fixed and can I sell it are 3 different things as well.

5.5 Sorcerer is probably the best striker for spellcasters regardless if you build around chromatic orb, scorching ray or fireball.

 

[Cergorach]

Honestly, I think you're premise of "It's a mechanical issue we can fix!" is a flawed one. It's a people issue, not a mechanical issue, and the 3e/5e design is a choice in the same vein as 0e/1e/2e. I also thought that 4e was mechanically superior to 3e/3.5e and even Pathfinder, but mechanical superiority does not necessarily make for a fun game. I found zero inspiration in 4e initial release, and while we had an intention to play (even bought everyone 4e PHBs in the group), it never materialized because of it. But some of my group did play it, and one of them disliked it because they played in a group that was optimizing the 4e builds in the same way they optimized builds in 3e/5e. It's what we've been calling min-maxing for the last 35+ years... And your new 5e spinoff isn't going to fix that.

There are other games that by design work differently, they have always use powers that either can use other resource pools (like health (mental or physical) like Shadowrun, or you can use your powers always and have certain limited pools that give you bonuses (blood) in Vampire. But you generally have a health stat that also functions as a cap on what you can do. If you do things that cost you your health, then your (adventuring) day quickly comes to an end and you will need time to recover. But those games aren't D&D. We can play such games and those 'fix' most of the mechanics you find flawed in D&D, but we generally don't, because we want to play D&D.

These pnp RPG games tend to be resource management games, but the alpha striking players aren't actually doing any resource management. As a DM/GM, you need to give them consequences for that. And that's extremely difficult, I've been pushing as a player for that in our group for almost two years and it generally doesn't happen, with about half the party (depending on who's a player and who's a DM) expending resources like crazy. I've recently started DMing and have added other resources into the equation. While they can die, they will start back at the inn they started at, resetting the entire timeline (they keep their experience, but not their treasure). I've added a sanity score to their characters, certain things deplete that stat permanently (their first death, the first time their brains are being eaten by an intellect devourer, etc.). And what I notice is that they are willing to take more risks, it also doesn't help that they entered Undermountain as a party of 3 1st level characters (was designed for 4+ 5th level characters). Some of the players are now in a mindset to start experimenting, and some are getting there. What they can do, how they manage resources, no fear exactly of death, only that they have to start the dungeon all over again (I have some other mechnics in place to not make that an absolute pain)...

Last session we got at the point where they were essentially ready to do another long rest after about 40min of adventuring, but we found out that the rules actually prevent another long rest in such a short time frame. They could have gone back and waited, but because they are not exactly sure yet what's going on (their characters have lost their memory), and the consequences of dying aren't dire, they continued on. They suprisingly succeeded a couple of extremely difficult encounters and have been working together very well, very well coordinated in combat, and when certain resources are gone, they're starting to figure out what their characters can do and can't do with most of their powers depleted. Which is progress imho. But, most importantly, they are having fun!

Redesigning a 5e spinoff might 'fix' some mechanical issues, but it won't fix min-maxing and power gaming in general. You're just moving the goalpost and people will find that goal just as quickly when they get used too the 'new' system variant. But what you're describing isn't really D&D anymore, different classes, different settings, etc. It's just another game, of which there are already many. The content for that 5e spinoff is also no longer compatible with generic 5e, as you've designed it for a different gameloop.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What kinda classes would you need for such a setting?

You'd definitely need to cover the 'Core Roles' of Tank, Healer, Damage Dealer, sure. Might be good to take another page out of 4e and build up a set of 'roles' that you want people to play in general. I might suggest:

1) Tank
Melee damage with high defenses or resistance and the ability to be a commanding presence on the battlefield enemies can't ignore.

I’d personally fold some of the “leader” roll into this, rather than anywhere else.

2) Skirmisher
In and out of combat, striking in melee before retreating. High damage, low survivability, high movement.

3) Blaster
Ranged AoE damage. This is your Alchemist flinging molotovs or something. Even lower survivability than the Skirmisher without the movement.

IMO this is better split between skirmisher and sniper, but I’m fine with it separate if you don’t want the others to have multi-target capabilities.

4) Support
Healing is a part of support, but so is cleansing problems, or creating opportunities. Might even be able to give people extra encounter power uses.

5) Sniper
Ranged damage dealer, sure. Single-target mostly. But also your debuffs. Whether that's a Hunter's Mark or a Warlock's curse or a Bard's insults.

You might notice I ditched the 4e "Controller" label in favor of 'Blaster'. There's two reasons for this. The first is that everyone should be able to reasonably drop some control on the battlefield. Restraining, knockdown, difficult terrain generation, etc. That isn't a "Role" so much as a choice you make between pushing throughput over manipulating enemies to save yourself or your allies. Blasters should absolutely have big AoE control powers, where Skirmishers and Tanks only get short-ranged or melee control effects, it just isn't the functional "Goal" of a specific role.

Secondly, the focus on AoE damage creates a strong dichotomy and role creation space for the Sniper as an option. 4e would've called it a "Ranged Striker" as compared to a "Melee Striker" but that's just ignoring the existence of a separate identifiable role in favor of trying to aim for 4 roles for 4th Edition. It would also create a really strong narrato-mechanical distinction for a theoretical Ranger where they get to be both the Skirmisher -and- the Sniper, helping to separate them out from the other classes in a really cool way.

With that established, we move onto the next most important item for classes: Power Source.

1) Arcane
Twiddle your fingies and say the magic words! Probably add some area denial to these classes.

IMO needs a focus on intellectual academic study or it becomes weird that it’s separate from occult.

2) Divine
Pray, and have someone actually respond with tangible support! Probably add some healing to these classes.

Since it’s a dn I guess we have to keep divine magic as prayer a thing. I hate it, though. It makes prayer and faith of non-PCs feel silly and meaningless, to me. I’d rather have divine magic be about invocation and ritual, with hallowing, blessing, rebuking, and healing, and then have arcane magic not be able to ever do those things.

3) Martial
Hit it with the pointy end. Or the sharp bit. Or the blunt face. Just hit it. Add some self-buffing to these.

Would the inner focus fueled semi-magical “monk stuff” sit here or be left to mixing martial with other sources?

4) Psychic
Brains vs brawn rarely works out so well in reality as it sometimes does in fiction. Maybe add some control.

5) Occult
Wiggity-Wiggity-Woo-Woo. Arcane, but generally 'Evil' or 'Dark'. Slap some debuffs onto these.

But there is already a dark tone, so arcane but dark doesn’t feel cromulent as a distinct category. Perhaps arcane is inherently and necessarily formulaic and wizard-like, while occult is more mysterious and looser.

6) Nature
Plants and Beasts and Fungus, oh my! Add a little healing and a little control to split the difference.

Now you're not gonna launch a new setting with one combat role for each of these power sources, obviously. That's 30 classes out of the gate before we even get to theming, which is the next most important step. But you should probably try to have at least one of each in the setting to make sure you've got somewhere for pretty much everyone to play. At least one Nature, at least one Arcane, etc. That said, Psychic is always the easiest to cut because people have the least amount of investment into it, lately.

But I did mention Theming... and this one is -so- important, you guys. It is the kind of thing that will define the game table in your settings. The types of characters people like to make.

1) Pretty/Aesthetic
Sounds like a cop-out but it really isn't. You're going to see the faerie princess pop up at your table a fair amount of times. It doesn't specifically have to be a faerie or a princess, but there's going to be people who want to play the 'pretty' class. This is why Warlocks have a Fey Patron option that gets glamours and stuff instead of Fey Patrons that give you decay and rot powers. Bard is probably the quintessential 'pretty' class. You know who else can be pretty? Monks. Robes and peace and gentleness that turns into a fist of iron in the middle of the tea party ceremony.

2) Heroic/Normal
Heroic coves a -lot- of what pretty does, but it also covers your knights in shining armor and some less armored types like barbarians and the grandstanding gladiators or warlords. It also applies to swashbucklers of every stripe, most of the ranger concepts that don't sit in the corner, brooding with a pipe. Your heroic players are going to want classes that stand out with big main character energy. Generally speaking, this won't be a spellcaster, but instead someone who hits things.

3) Dark/Strange
Vampire the Masquerade has Nosferatu as a clan because sometimes people want to play the monstrous even in a game about monsters. Heroic monsters, but monstrous nonetheless. This is why Warlocks exist for the most part. But you can also do dark Rangers, Barbarians, and Rogues pretty easily. Monstrous ones, too. Most settings and games tend to make the dark or strange into a species choice, almost exclusively, and maybe toss in some small asides for magic items or optional features that add some dark/strange.

Now if you were to do a PHD (Pretty/Heroic/Dark) for each of the 5 roles you'd wind up with 15 classes. Much more manageable, but still more than WotC's core class list of 12. 13 if you include Artificer, 14 if you include Blood Hunter, and bang on 15 if you include the Illrigger.

So let's look at a potential example list:

1) Tanks
a) Champion. Martial Heroic type.
b) Swordmage. Arcane Pretty type.
c) Blackguard. Occult Dark type.

2) Skirmishers
a) Keeper. Occult Heroic type.
b) Berserk. Nature Pretty type.
c) Inquisitor. Divine Dark type.

3) Blasters
a) Alchemist. Martial Heroic type.
b) Primalist. Nature Pretty type.
c) Esper. Psychic Dark type.

4) Support
a) Captain. Martial Heroic type.
b) Priest. Divine Pretty type.
c) Spiritualist. Occult Dark type.

5) Snipers
a) Warcaster. Arcane Heroic type
b) Minstrel. Arcane Pretty type.
c) Witch. Nature Dark type.

Yes, some of the above classes are classes I've put out for A5e and 5e compatible games. Don't read too much into that.

With this setup you wind up with 3 Arcane, 3 Martial, 3 Nature, 3 Occult, 2 Divine, and 1 Psychic. As a bonus, I unintentionally excluded any Arcane Full Casters which, hey, really limits the existence of some of the more problematic spells. Win/Win, there, for setting yourself up for an easier time building a more balanced system tied to your setting.

As a reminder, in this thought experiment we're -not- doing the core classes, since you're basically piloting a new functionality built around the 'full' adventuring day that D&D 5e is built off of.

Thoughts? Comments?

Would bigger spells or abilities require multiple actions? I’m all for multi-action tasks, and even multi-round tasks. It’s a great way to help balance magic, and it feels good in play mechanically and thematically.

For the sources, what about building each class on the basis of how two or more sources intersect, somewhat like Daggerheart and its domains?

 

[Remathilis]

In that case, don't mention or even allude to the roles anywhere in the final version; because you just know that if you do mention them people will take them to be straitjackets, similar to how alignment was mis-played in the TSR days or Leader was misinterpreted as "party boss" in 4e.

In fact, I'm tempted to suggest dropping the idea of designated 'roles' completely and instead design each class to find its own place within a typical party as best it can.

The problem with "not designing for a role" is that you can design a class that has no role. Or fills roles it's not intended to.

Personally, I think it would be more interesting to have fewer classes, but they can fill ANY role. For example, the Warrior class is good at martial skills but depending on the features and abilities can be a Knight (tank), a Warlord (healer) or a Slayer (DPS), etc. Each set of options moves you towards a certain style of play. You don't have the "all clerics must heal" issue: a cleric can fight with divine weaponry (paladin) or blast foes with holy light (invoker).

On the surface, this sounds a bit like the Power Source + Role = Class, and I admit it does, but the key difference is that you can pick abilities from other roles freely. So the Warrior might start out on the Knight/Tank path, but decide the group needs a little more healing and pick up some Warlord/Healer abilities to augment instead of getting additional Knightly ones. What role you fill depends on what tracks and powers you pick as you go, not what class you picked at level 1.

I'm not sure how you do this outside or talent trees or powers/feats. Either way, you're looking at something more complex than 5e, for better or worse. But I think its completely possible that SOMEONE can create a customizable system where you don't need the "Fighter fights, Cleric heals, Wizard blasts, Rogue sneaks" as the only possible option.

 

[Zardnaar]

The problem with "not designing for a role" is that you can design a class that has no role. Or fills roles it's not intended to.

Personally, I think it would be more interesting to have fewer classes, but they can fill ANY role. For example, the Warrior class is good at martial skills but depending on the features and abilities can be a Knight (tank), a Warlord (healer) or a Slayer (DPS), etc. Each set of options moves you towards a certain style of play. You don't have the "all clerics must heal" issue: a cleric can fight with divine weaponry (paladin) or blast foes with holy light (invoker).

On the surface, this sounds a bit like the Power Source + Role = Class, and I admit it does, but the key difference is that you can pick abilities from other roles freely. So the Warrior might start out on the Knight/Tank path, but decide the group needs a little more healing and pick up some Warlord/Healer abilities to augment instead of getting additional Knightly ones. What role you fill depends on what tracks and powers you pick as you go, not what class you picked at level 1.

I'm not sure how you do this outside or talent trees or powers/feats. Either way, you're looking at something more complex than 5e, for better or worse. But I think its completely possible that SOMEONE can create a customizable system where you don't need the "Fighter fights, Cleric heals, Wizard blasts, Rogue sneaks" as the only possible option.

You could make it less complicated but it would be very simple.

Eg divine class. The crusader gets weapons and air, the priest a healing ability, the invoker an extra dice of damage.

On a striker the difference is d6 vs d8 bonus damage. May not sound like much but scale things appropriately.

1d6 vs 30 hp.
3d6 vs 90 hp

Hmmmnn

 

[Remathilis]

These pnp RPG games tend to be resource management games, but the alpha striking players aren't actually doing any resource management. As a DM/GM, you need to give them consequences for that. And that's extremely difficult, I've been pushing as a player for that in our group for almost two years and it generally doesn't happen, with about half the party (depending on who's a player and who's a DM) expending resources like crazy.

I think part of the problem is D&D's resource management is locked to "dungeon" style of play. The PCs are far away from home, in hostile territory, facing multiple hostile encounters in a short period. Resource management breaks down when the PCs aren't in hostile territory (such as urban adventures), have access to renewable supplies (like shops and inns), and aren't supposed to face multiple encounters but instead a few larger set piece adventures. Tack on variable time pressure (to allow for short/long rests) and PCs face every encounter with nova potential and limited risk.

For me, the question was never one of dropping my players in Undermountain and seeing if they can manage resources. The issue comes when I put them in Waterdeep and they can face every group of thugs, treacherous nobles, or murderous cult with full power and then easily use the resources of the city to heal and restock. That's where D&D resource management fails.

 

[Remathilis]

You could make it less complicated but it would be very simple.

Eg divine class. The crusader gets weapons and air, the priest a healing ability, the invoker an extra dice of damage.

On a striker the difference is d6 vs d8 bonus damage. May not sound like much but scale things appropriately.

1d6 vs 30 hp.
3d6 vs 90 hp

Hmmmnn

They key here is that classes can pick and choose freely enough that once the PC picks Crusader, he isn't locked of picking priest or invoker abilities. At least some of them.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think part of the problem is D&D's resource management is locked to "dungeon" style of play. The PCs are far away from home, in hostile territory, facing multiple hostile encounters in a short period. Resource management breaks down when the PCs aren't in hostile territory (such as urban adventures), have access to renewable supplies (like shops and inns), and aren't supposed to face multiple encounters but instead a few larger set piece adventures. Tack on variable time pressure (to allow for short/long rests) and PCs face every encounter with nova potential and limited risk.

For me, the question was never one of dropping my players in Undermountain and seeing if they can manage resources. The issue comes when I put them in Waterdeep and they can face every group of thugs, treacherous nobles, or murderous cult with full power and then easily use the resources of the city to heal and restock. That's where D&D resource management fails.

Old school doesn't have the problem to same extent.

I attritioned some players out with very few '"easy" encounters over a few days.

1hp vs all your hp back (+ HD) is the difference.

4E fa s claim healing surges are a great idea. You dont even need them though. The "need" is artificial because you bloated the HP to begin with and rapid recovery rate.

Also kinda destroys a traditional hex crawl.

Wands of CLW another example. They weren't as hard coded though.

 

[sevenbastard]

Disagree. The mechanics are bad specifically because they weren't designed to take the 5 minute adventuring day into account.

Sure, but a 1st edition wizard had exactly the same issue of using a spells as any other edition wizard. No edition addresses the 5 minute adventuring day.

If the party doesn't have a time limit, there is no reason to approach any challenge without maximum resources regardless of game system.

 

[Chaltab]

Old school doesn't have the problem to same extent.

I attritioned some players out with very few '"easy" encounters over a few days.

1hp vs all your hp back (+ HD) is the difference.

4E fa s claim healing surges are a great idea. You dont even need them though. The "need" is artificial because you bloated the HP to begin with and rapid recovery rate.

Healing Surges were a great idea.... it has nothing to do with how much of your HP they heal. Healing surges were a pacing mechanic, a measure of how far the players could go before they had to take a long rest because you lose the ability to regain hit points. Hit dice serve basically the same function in 5E.